“Sparring” history between SG Ambassador and Tony Pua, appointed right-hand man of M’sia Finance Minister
extract from above
SG Ambassador-at-Large fires first shot
The appointment of Mr Pua playing a part in the Malaysian government decision making process, especially in an important ministry like the Finance Ministry, must have come as a surprise to Singapore's Ambassador-at-Large Bilahari Kausikan.
Three years ago in 2015, there was an intense online "sparring" incident involving Bilahari and Mr Pua, who was then just a lowly Malaysian opposition figure.
It all started with a series of Bersih protests in Malaysia, organised by a coalition of NGOs which seeks to reform the electoral system in Malaysia. The protests were carried out with the objective to calling for clean and transparent governance in Malaysia as well as strengthening the parliamentary democracy system.
In Oct 2015, Bilahari decided to write an article published in the Straits Times criticising the Bersih movement and poking his nose into Malaysian politics. He said that "young Malaysian Chinese" were "delusional" in believing that the alleged Malaysian "principle of Malay dominance can be changed".
"It is my impression that many young Malaysian Chinese have forgotten the lessons of May 13, 1969. They naively believe that the system built around the principle of Malay dominance can be changed," Bilahari wrote. "That may be why they abandoned MCA for the DAP. They are delusional. Malay dominance will be defended by any means.”
Malaysian MPs Tony Pua and Dr Ong Kian Meng respond
His article drew a sharp response from Mr Pua, who was an opposition MP at the time.
Writing on his Facebook page, Mr Pua said, "He (Bilahari) did Singapore no favour by cementing the perception of his country as the mercenary prick of Southeast Asia... And they wonder why they have no friends."
Mr Pua also added, "I don’t care much if this was the view of some academic or armchair critic. But as the Ambassador-at-large, Mr Bilahari is a spokesman for Singapore." Mr Pua was reminding Bilahari of his position while writing the ST article criticising Malaysian politics.
Separately, Dr Ong Kian Ming, also an opposition MP at the time, issued a statement countering Bilahari that the growing civil society movement against Malaysia’s ruling Barisan Nasional coalition then was reflective of the global trend where long-entrenched regimes are eventually removed by the people.
"Ambassador Kausikan is right to say that Singapore has no choice but to work with whatever system or leader emerges in Malaysia," Dr Ong said. "But, one cannot help but wonder if his fears about a possible transition in power in Malaysia, especially one that is peaceful and well-ordered, is driven more by his fears of such a possibility in Singapore in the distant but foreseeable future than for his concern of what might happen in Malaysia."
Later, Mr Pua’s posting prompted a response from Bilahari, who complained about Mr Pua’s "rude comments" about him and Singapore.
" thought that Mr Pua's crudity speaks for itself more tellingly than anything I could have written," Bilahari wrote.
Mr Pua rebutted the complaint, "I don't know about you, but I thought the 'mercenary prick of Southeast Asia' was a very 'coherent' description of Mr Bilahari's articulation of Singapore's interest. It might be 'crude', sure, but some will actually say that I'm just too polite."
Academic: Bilahari ignores bread-and-butter issues
The spat was widely reported and academic like Professor Danny Quah of the Saw Swee Hock Southeast Asia Centre at the London School of Economics (LSE) weighed in.
Prof Quah questioned the underlying assumption or basis of Bilahari's claims, "What is notable about it is how a seasoned, wise, and supremely talented political observer such as its author fails to acknowledge the universal aspirations of Malaysia’s citizens, but instead sees only the obvious surface tensions in that country. In the relentless rush of Realist discourse, he ends up articulating a narrative no deeper than what power elites have, for decades now, wanted ordinary people to believe."
"More critical, it seems to me, is not the problem of idealism vs realism," Prof Quah said. "It’s whether the writer has accurately read that in Malaysia, as he says bluntly, ‘the pressure point is religion'. This line jars."
Prof Quah said that "the situation in Malaysia is one where people deal, every day, with bread-and-butter issues like escalating corruption, criminal malfeasance, rising extreme poverty, widening income disparities, and a failure in national governance."
"In the midst of this wide array of social problems, the writer points to… religion. Such a diversionary tactic, long practised by power elites everywhere, puts blame elsewhere than where the problem genuinely rests."
As things turned out, the recent GE in Malaysia has shown that Bilahari's assertion of Malaysians embracing race-based politics was thrown out. Malaysians have overwhelmingly abandoned it by voting the Barisan Nasional out and choosing the Pakatan Harapan instead, which has advocated a "Malaysian Malaysia".
extract from above
SG Ambassador-at-Large fires first shot
The appointment of Mr Pua playing a part in the Malaysian government decision making process, especially in an important ministry like the Finance Ministry, must have come as a surprise to Singapore's Ambassador-at-Large Bilahari Kausikan.
Three years ago in 2015, there was an intense online "sparring" incident involving Bilahari and Mr Pua, who was then just a lowly Malaysian opposition figure.
It all started with a series of Bersih protests in Malaysia, organised by a coalition of NGOs which seeks to reform the electoral system in Malaysia. The protests were carried out with the objective to calling for clean and transparent governance in Malaysia as well as strengthening the parliamentary democracy system.
In Oct 2015, Bilahari decided to write an article published in the Straits Times criticising the Bersih movement and poking his nose into Malaysian politics. He said that "young Malaysian Chinese" were "delusional" in believing that the alleged Malaysian "principle of Malay dominance can be changed".
"It is my impression that many young Malaysian Chinese have forgotten the lessons of May 13, 1969. They naively believe that the system built around the principle of Malay dominance can be changed," Bilahari wrote. "That may be why they abandoned MCA for the DAP. They are delusional. Malay dominance will be defended by any means.”
Malaysian MPs Tony Pua and Dr Ong Kian Meng respond
His article drew a sharp response from Mr Pua, who was an opposition MP at the time.
Writing on his Facebook page, Mr Pua said, "He (Bilahari) did Singapore no favour by cementing the perception of his country as the mercenary prick of Southeast Asia... And they wonder why they have no friends."
Mr Pua also added, "I don’t care much if this was the view of some academic or armchair critic. But as the Ambassador-at-large, Mr Bilahari is a spokesman for Singapore." Mr Pua was reminding Bilahari of his position while writing the ST article criticising Malaysian politics.
Separately, Dr Ong Kian Ming, also an opposition MP at the time, issued a statement countering Bilahari that the growing civil society movement against Malaysia’s ruling Barisan Nasional coalition then was reflective of the global trend where long-entrenched regimes are eventually removed by the people.
"Ambassador Kausikan is right to say that Singapore has no choice but to work with whatever system or leader emerges in Malaysia," Dr Ong said. "But, one cannot help but wonder if his fears about a possible transition in power in Malaysia, especially one that is peaceful and well-ordered, is driven more by his fears of such a possibility in Singapore in the distant but foreseeable future than for his concern of what might happen in Malaysia."
Later, Mr Pua’s posting prompted a response from Bilahari, who complained about Mr Pua’s "rude comments" about him and Singapore.
" thought that Mr Pua's crudity speaks for itself more tellingly than anything I could have written," Bilahari wrote.
Mr Pua rebutted the complaint, "I don't know about you, but I thought the 'mercenary prick of Southeast Asia' was a very 'coherent' description of Mr Bilahari's articulation of Singapore's interest. It might be 'crude', sure, but some will actually say that I'm just too polite."
Academic: Bilahari ignores bread-and-butter issues
The spat was widely reported and academic like Professor Danny Quah of the Saw Swee Hock Southeast Asia Centre at the London School of Economics (LSE) weighed in.
Prof Quah questioned the underlying assumption or basis of Bilahari's claims, "What is notable about it is how a seasoned, wise, and supremely talented political observer such as its author fails to acknowledge the universal aspirations of Malaysia’s citizens, but instead sees only the obvious surface tensions in that country. In the relentless rush of Realist discourse, he ends up articulating a narrative no deeper than what power elites have, for decades now, wanted ordinary people to believe."
"More critical, it seems to me, is not the problem of idealism vs realism," Prof Quah said. "It’s whether the writer has accurately read that in Malaysia, as he says bluntly, ‘the pressure point is religion'. This line jars."
Prof Quah said that "the situation in Malaysia is one where people deal, every day, with bread-and-butter issues like escalating corruption, criminal malfeasance, rising extreme poverty, widening income disparities, and a failure in national governance."
"In the midst of this wide array of social problems, the writer points to… religion. Such a diversionary tactic, long practised by power elites everywhere, puts blame elsewhere than where the problem genuinely rests."
As things turned out, the recent GE in Malaysia has shown that Bilahari's assertion of Malaysians embracing race-based politics was thrown out. Malaysians have overwhelmingly abandoned it by voting the Barisan Nasional out and choosing the Pakatan Harapan instead, which has advocated a "Malaysian Malaysia".
